Search Results

Search found 49 results on 2 pages for 'continuations'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

  • Don't understand the typing of Scala's delimited continuations (A @cps[B,C])

    - by jkff
    I'm struggling to understand what precisely does it mean when a value has type A @cps[B,C] and what types of this form should I assign to my values when using the delimited continuations facility. I've looked at some sources: http://lamp.epfl.ch/~rompf/continuations-icfp09.pdf http://www.scala-lang.org/node/2096 http://dcsobral.blogspot.com/2009/07/delimited-continuations-explained-in.html http://blog.richdougherty.com/2009/02/delimited-continuations-in-scala_24.html but they didn't give me much intuition into this. In the last link, the author tries to give an explicit explanation, but it is not clear enough anyway. The A here represents the output of the computation, which is also the input to its continuation. The B represents the return type of that continuation, and the C represents its "final" return type—because shift can do further processing to the returned value and change its type. I don't understand the difference between "output of the computation", "return type of the continuation" and "final return type of the continuation". They sound like synonyms.

    Read the article

  • Continuations in Java

    - by nobeh
    I am looking for recent work presenting continuations in Java. I have come across the same question here but it dates back for a year or two. There is some work such as JavaFlow by Apache, RIFE Continuations (that I cannot download for any reason now). Also there is a blog post mentioning the support in JDK but it seems that the support will span to Java 8. I also reckon that continuations are also introduced in recent Scala versions. I am looking for implementations in Java presenting the continuations concept. And, I am not looking for the works that present continuation-passing-style (CSP). I'd be thankful for any other work you might know.

    Read the article

  • How do I use continuations on Scala 2.8?

    - by Seth Tisue
    Scala 2.8.0.RC1 includes the continuations plugin on trunk for the first time, but the details of how to use it have changed from previous releases, so it's difficult to follow the blog entries and SO answers out there that talk about continuations but were written for previous versions.

    Read the article

  • How to implement continuations?

    - by Kyle Cronin
    I'm working on a Scheme interpreter written in C. Currently it uses the C runtime stack as its own stack, which is presenting a minor problem with implementing continuations. My current solution is manual copying of the C stack to the heap then copying it back when needed. Aside from not being standard C, this solution is hardly ideal. What is the simplest way to implement continuations for Scheme in C?

    Read the article

  • Looking for examples of "real" uses of continuations

    - by Sébastien RoccaSerra
    I'm trying to grasp the concept of continuations and I found several small teaching examples like this one from the Wikipedia article: (define the-continuation #f) (define (test) (let ((i 0)) ; call/cc calls its first function argument, passing ; a continuation variable representing this point in ; the program as the argument to that function. ; ; In this case, the function argument assigns that ; continuation to the variable the-continuation. ; (call/cc (lambda (k) (set! the-continuation k))) ; ; The next time the-continuation is called, we start here. (set! i (+ i 1)) i)) I understand what this little function does, but I can't see any obvious application of it. While I don't expect to use continuations all over my code anytime soon, I wish I knew a few cases where they can be appropriate. So I'm looking for more explicitely usefull code samples of what continuations can offer me as a programmer. Cheers!

    Read the article

  • Can't understand example using continuations

    - by Matt Fenwick
    I'm reading the r6rs Scheme report and am confused by the explanation of continuations (I find it to be too dense and lacking of examples for a beginner). What is this code doing and how does it evaluate to 4? Why does call/cc want an argument that's a function of one argument? How is call/cc's argument used? (+ 1 (call-with-current-continuation (lambda (escape) (+ 2 (escape 3))))) =? 4 This example is from section 1.11 - Continuations.

    Read the article

  • converting code from not CPS to CPS (CPS aka Continuation Passing Style aka Continuations)

    - by Delirium tremens
    before: function sc_startSiteCompare(){ var visitinguri; var validateduri; var downloaduris; var compareuris; var tryinguri; sc_setstatus('started'); visitinguri = sc_getvisitinguri(); validateduri = sc_getvalidateduri(visitinguri); downloaduris = new Array(); downloaduris = sc_generatedownloaduris(validateduri); compareuris = new Array(); compareuris = sc_generatecompareuris(validateduri); tryinguri = 0; sc_finishSiteCompare(downloaduris, compareuris, tryinguri); } function sc_getvisitinguri() { var visitinguri; visitinguri = content.location.href; return visitinguri; } after (I'm trying): function sc_startSiteCompare(){ var visitinguri; sc_setstatus('started'); visitinguri = sc_getvisitinguri(sc_startSiteComparec1); } function sc_startSiteComparec1 (visitinguri) { var validateduri; validateduri = sc_getvalidateduri(visitinguri, sc_startSiteComparec2); } function sc_startSiteComparec2 (visitinguri, c) { var downloaduris; downloaduris = sc_generatedownloaduris(validateduri, sc_startSiteComparec3); } function sc_startSiteComparec3 (validateduri, c) { var compareuris; compareuris = sc_generatecompareuris(downloaduris, validateduri, sc_startSiteComparec4); } function sc_startSiteComparec4 (downloaduris, compareuris, validateduri, c) { var tryinguri; tryinguri = 0; sc_finishSiteCompare(downloaduris, compareuris, tryinguri); } function sc_getvisitinguri(c) { var visitinguri; visitinguri = content.location.href; c(visitinguri); } What should the code above become? I need CPS, because I have XMLHttpRequests when validating uris, then downloading pages, but I can't use return statements, because I use asynchronous calls. Is there an alternative to CPS? Also, I'm having to pass lots of arguments to functions now. global in procedural code look like this / self in modular code. Any difference? Will I really have to convert from procedural to modular too? It's looking like a lot of work ahead.

    Read the article

  • Parallelism in .NET – Part 18, Task Continuations with Multiple Tasks

    - by Reed
    In my introduction to Task continuations I demonstrated how the Task class provides a more expressive alternative to traditional callbacks.  Task continuations provide a much cleaner syntax to traditional callbacks, but there are other reasons to switch to using continuations… Task continuations provide a clean syntax, and a very simple, elegant means of synchronizing asynchronous method results with the user interface.  In addition, continuations provide a very simple, elegant means of working with collections of tasks. Prior to .NET 4, working with multiple related asynchronous method calls was very tricky.  If, for example, we wanted to run two asynchronous operations, followed by a single method call which we wanted to run when the first two methods completed, we’d have to program all of the handling ourselves.  We would likely need to take some approach such as using a shared callback which synchronized against a common variable, or using a WaitHandle shared within the callbacks to allow one to wait for the second.  Although this could be accomplished easily enough, it requires manually placing this handling into every algorithm which requires this form of blocking.  This is error prone, difficult, and can easily lead to subtle bugs. Similar to how the Task class static methods providing a way to block until multiple tasks have completed, TaskFactory contains static methods which allow a continuation to be scheduled upon the completion of multiple tasks: TaskFactory.ContinueWhenAll. This allows you to easily specify a single delegate to run when a collection of tasks has completed.  For example, suppose we have a class which fetches data from the network.  This can be a long running operation, and potentially fail in certain situations, such as a server being down.  As a result, we have three separate servers which we will “query” for our information.  Now, suppose we want to grab data from all three servers, and verify that the results are the same from all three. With traditional asynchronous programming in .NET, this would require using three separate callbacks, and managing the synchronization between the various operations ourselves.  The Task and TaskFactory classes simplify this for us, allowing us to write: var server1 = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => networkClass.GetResults(firstServer) ); var server2 = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => networkClass.GetResults(secondServer) ); var server3 = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => networkClass.GetResults(thirdServer) ); var result = Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAll( new[] {server1, server2, server3 }, (tasks) => { // Propogate exceptions (see below) Task.WaitAll(tasks); return this.CompareTaskResults( tasks[0].Result, tasks[1].Result, tasks[2].Result); }); .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } This is clean, simple, and elegant.  The one complication is the Task.WaitAll(tasks); statement. Although the continuation will not complete until all three tasks (server1, server2, and server3) have completed, there is a potential snag.  If the networkClass.GetResults method fails, and raises an exception, we want to make sure to handle it cleanly.  By using Task.WaitAll, any exceptions raised within any of our original tasks will get wrapped into a single AggregateException by the WaitAll method, providing us a simplified means of handling the exceptions.  If we wait on the continuation, we can trap this AggregateException, and handle it cleanly.  Without this line, it’s possible that an exception could remain uncaught and unhandled by a task, which later might trigger a nasty UnobservedTaskException.  This would happen any time two of our original tasks failed. Just as we can schedule a continuation to occur when an entire collection of tasks has completed, we can just as easily setup a continuation to run when any single task within a collection completes.  If, for example, we didn’t need to compare the results of all three network locations, but only use one, we could still schedule three tasks.  We could then have our completion logic work on the first task which completed, and ignore the others.  This is done via TaskFactory.ContinueWhenAny: var server1 = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => networkClass.GetResults(firstServer) ); var server2 = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => networkClass.GetResults(secondServer) ); var server3 = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => networkClass.GetResults(thirdServer) ); var result = Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAny( new[] {server1, server2, server3 }, (firstTask) => { return this.ProcessTaskResult(firstTask.Result); }); .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } Here, instead of working with all three tasks, we’re just using the first task which finishes.  This is very useful, as it allows us to easily work with results of multiple operations, and “throw away” the others.  However, you must take care when using ContinueWhenAny to properly handle exceptions.  At some point, you should always wait on each task (or use the Task.Result property) in order to propogate any exceptions raised from within the task.  Failing to do so can lead to an UnobservedTaskException.

    Read the article

  • Can continuations be used as a replacement for recursion?

    - by Sam
    The following function generates a 'stack level too deep (SystemStackError)' for n = 5,000 def factorial(n) n == 0 ? 1 : factorial(n -1) * n end Is there a way to avoid this error using continuations/callcc? Note: I know this can be implemented without recursion. e.g. def factorial2(n) (1..n).inject(1) {|result, n| result * n } end

    Read the article

  • How to split and dispatch an async control-flow using Continuations?

    - by hotzen
    Hello, I have an asynchronous control-flow like the following: ActorA ! DoA(dataA, callback1, callbackOnErrorA) def callback1() = { ... ActorB ! DoB(dataB, callback2, callbackOnErrorB) } def callback2() = { ActorC ! DoC(dataC, callback3, callbackOnErrorC) } ... How would I divide this flow into several parts (continuations) and sequentially dispatch these to different actors (or threads/tasks) while maintaining the overall state? Any hint appreciated, Thanks

    Read the article

  • Parallelism in .NET – Part 17, Think Continuations, not Callbacks

    - by Reed
    In traditional asynchronous programming, we’d often use a callback to handle notification of a background task’s completion.  The Task class in the Task Parallel Library introduces a cleaner alternative to the traditional callback: continuation tasks. Asynchronous programming methods typically required callback functions.  For example, MSDN’s Asynchronous Delegates Programming Sample shows a class that factorizes a number.  The original method in the example has the following signature: public static bool Factorize(int number, ref int primefactor1, ref int primefactor2) { //... .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } However, calling this is quite “tricky”, even if we modernize the sample to use lambda expressions via C# 3.0.  Normally, we could call this method like so: int primeFactor1 = 0; int primeFactor2 = 0; bool answer = Factorize(10298312, ref primeFactor1, ref primeFactor2); Console.WriteLine("{0}/{1} [Succeeded {2}]", primeFactor1, primeFactor2, answer); If we want to make this operation run in the background, and report to the console via a callback, things get tricker.  First, we need a delegate definition: public delegate bool AsyncFactorCaller( int number, ref int primefactor1, ref int primefactor2); Then we need to use BeginInvoke to run this method asynchronously: int primeFactor1 = 0; int primeFactor2 = 0; AsyncFactorCaller caller = new AsyncFactorCaller(Factorize); caller.BeginInvoke(10298312, ref primeFactor1, ref primeFactor2, result => { int factor1 = 0; int factor2 = 0; bool answer = caller.EndInvoke(ref factor1, ref factor2, result); Console.WriteLine("{0}/{1} [Succeeded {2}]", factor1, factor2, answer); }, null); This works, but is quite difficult to understand from a conceptual standpoint.  To combat this, the framework added the Event-based Asynchronous Pattern, but it isn’t much easier to understand or author. Using .NET 4’s new Task<T> class and a continuation, we can dramatically simplify the implementation of the above code, as well as make it much more understandable.  We do this via the Task.ContinueWith method.  This method will schedule a new Task upon completion of the original task, and provide the original Task (including its Result if it’s a Task<T>) as an argument.  Using Task, we can eliminate the delegate, and rewrite this code like so: var background = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => { int primeFactor1 = 0; int primeFactor2 = 0; bool result = Factorize(10298312, ref primeFactor1, ref primeFactor2); return new { Result = result, Factor1 = primeFactor1, Factor2 = primeFactor2 }; }); background.ContinueWith(task => Console.WriteLine("{0}/{1} [Succeeded {2}]", task.Result.Factor1, task.Result.Factor2, task.Result.Result)); This is much simpler to understand, in my opinion.  Here, we’re explicitly asking to start a new task, then continue the task with a resulting task.  In our case, our method used ref parameters (this was from the MSDN Sample), so there is a little bit of extra boiler plate involved, but the code is at least easy to understand. That being said, this isn’t dramatically shorter when compared with our C# 3 port of the MSDN code above.  However, if we were to extend our requirements a bit, we can start to see more advantages to the Task based approach.  For example, supposed we need to report the results in a user interface control instead of reporting it to the Console.  This would be a common operation, but now, we have to think about marshaling our calls back to the user interface.  This is probably going to require calling Control.Invoke or Dispatcher.Invoke within our callback, forcing us to specify a delegate within the delegate.  The maintainability and ease of understanding drops.  However, just as a standard Task can be created with a TaskScheduler that uses the UI synchronization context, so too can we continue a task with a specific context.  There are Task.ContinueWith method overloads which allow you to provide a TaskScheduler.  This means you can schedule the continuation to run on the UI thread, by simply doing: Task.Factory.StartNew( () => { int primeFactor1 = 0; int primeFactor2 = 0; bool result = Factorize(10298312, ref primeFactor1, ref primeFactor2); return new { Result = result, Factor1 = primeFactor1, Factor2 = primeFactor2 }; }).ContinueWith(task => textBox1.Text = string.Format("{0}/{1} [Succeeded {2}]", task.Result.Factor1, task.Result.Factor2, task.Result.Result), TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext()); This is far more understandable than the alternative.  By using Task.ContinueWith in conjunction with TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext(), we get a simple way to push any work onto a background thread, and update the user interface on the proper UI thread.  This technique works with Windows Presentation Foundation as well as Windows Forms, with no change in methodology.

    Read the article

  • Scala command line parameters in eclipse?

    - by Mitch Blevins
    Scala includes the continuations plugin now (yay), but must be enabled by passing "-P:continuations:enable" to the scala compiler. Is there a way to pass arbitrary arguments to scalac for the eclipse scala plugin? From: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.scala/19439 the plugin is loaded by default, but it must be enabled by the command line argument -P:continuations:enable

    Read the article

  • Continuation (call/cc) in Scheme

    - by darkie15
    Hi All, I need to understand Continuations in Scheme for my upcoming exams and I have no idea about continuations at all. Can anyone please suggest me sources of how to go about learning continuations? Regards, darkie

    Read the article

  • Excel Macros - Too many line continuations

    - by pojomx
    Hi, I have a "large" sql query (like 200 lines)... dim query as string query = "..................................." & _ "..................................." & _ .... Like a lot lines later... "..................................." function query,"sheet 1" When i do this, excel says "Too many line continuations." What is the best way, to avoid this? Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • Continuation monad "interface"

    - by sdcvvc
    The state monad "interface" class MonadState s m where get :: m s put :: s -> m () (+ return and bind) allows to construct any possible computation with State monad without using State constructor. For example, State $ \s -> (s+1, s-1) can be written as do s <- get put (s-1) return (s+1) Similarily, I never have to use Reader constructor, because I can create that computation using ask, return and (>>=). Precisely: Reader f == ask >>= return . f. Is it the same true for continuations - is it possible to write all instances of Cont r a using callCC (the only function in MonadCont), return and bind, and never type something like Cont (\c -> ...)?

    Read the article

  • call/cc in Lua - Possible?

    - by Pessimist
    The Wikipedia article on Continuation says: "In any language which supports closures, it is possible to write programs in continuation passing style and manually implement call/cc." Either that is true and I need to know how to do it or it is not true and that statement needs to be corrected. If this is true, please show me how to implement call/cc in Lua because I can't see how. I think I'd be able to implement call/cc manually if Lua had the coroutine.clone function as explained here. If closures are not enough to implement call/cc then what else is needed? The text below is optional reading. P.S.: Lua has one-shot continuations with its coroutine table. A coroutine.clone function would allow me to clone it to call it multiple times, thus effectively making call/cc possible (unless I misunderstand call/cc). However that cloning function doesn't exist in Lua. Someone on the Lua IRC channel suggested that I use the Pluto library (it implements serialization) to marshal a coroutine, copy it and then unmarshal it and use it again. While that would probably work, I am more interested in the theoretical implementation of call/cc and in finding what is the actual minimum set of features that a language needs to have in order to allow for its manual implementation.

    Read the article

  • Help with dynamic-wind and call/cc

    - by josh
    I am having some trouble understanding the behavior of the following Scheme program: (define c (dynamic-wind (lambda () (display 'IN)(newline)) (lambda () (call/cc (lambda (k) (display 'X)(newline) k))) (lambda () (display 'OUT)(newline)))) As I understand, c will be bound to the continution created right before "(display 'X)". But using c seems to modify itself! The define above prints (as I expected) IN, X and OUT: IN X OUT And it is a procedure: #;2> c #<procedure (a9869 . results1678)> Now, I would expect that when it is called again, X would be printed, and it is not! #;3> (c) IN OUT And now c is not a procedure anymore, and a second invokation of c won't work! #;4> c ;; the REPL doesn't answer this, so there are no values returned #;5> (c) Error: call of non-procedure: #<unspecified> Call history: <syntax> (c) <eval> (c) <-- I was expecting that each invokation to (c) would do the same thing -- print IN, X, and OUT. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • Practical Scheme Programming

    - by Ixmatus
    It's been a few months since I've touched Scheme and decided to implement a command line income partitioner using Scheme. My initial implementation used plain recursion over the continuation, but I figured a continuation would be more appropriate to this type of program. I would appreciate it if anyone (more skilled with Scheme than I) could take a look at this and suggest improvements. I'm that the multiple (display... lines is an ideal opportunity to use a macro as well (I just haven't gotten to macros yet). (define (ab-income) (call/cc (lambda (cc) (let ((out (display "Income: ")) (income (string->number (read-line)))) (cond ((<= income 600) (display (format "Please enter an amount greater than $600.00~n~n")) (cc (ab-income))) (else (let ((bills (* (/ 30 100) income)) (taxes (* (/ 20 100) income)) (savings (* (/ 10 100) income)) (checking (* (/ 40 100) income))) (display (format "~nDeduct for bills:---------------------- $~a~n" (real->decimal-string bills 2))) (display (format "Deduct for taxes:---------------------- $~a~n" (real->decimal-string taxes 2))) (display (format "Deduct for savings:-------------------- $~a~n" (real->decimal-string savings 2))) (display (format "Remainder for checking:---------------- $~a~n" (real->decimal-string checking 2)))))))))) Invoking (ab-income) asks for input and if anything below 600 is provided it (from my understanding) returns (ab-income) at the current-continuation. My first implementation (as I said earlier) used plain-jane recursion. It wasn't bad at all either but I figured every return call to (ab-income) if the value was below 600 kept expanding the function. (please correct me if that apprehension is incorrect!)

    Read the article

  • chaining array of tasks with continuation

    - by Andrei Cristof
    I have a Task structure that is a little bit complex(for me at least). The structure is: (where T = Task) T1, T2, T3... Tn. There's an array (a list of files), and the T's represent tasks created for each file. Each T has always two subtasks that it must complete or fail: Tn.1, Tn.2 - download and install. For each download (Tn.1) there are always two subtasks to try, download from two paths(Tn.1.1, Tn.1.2). Execution would be: First, download file: Tn1.1. If Tn.1.1 fails, then Tn.1.2 executes. If either from download tasks returns OK - execute Tn.2. If Tn.2 executed or failed - go to next Tn. I figured the first thing to do, was to write all this structure with jagged arrays: private void CreateTasks() { //main array Task<int>[][][] mainTask = new Task<int>[_queuedApps.Count][][]; for (int i = 0; i < mainTask.Length; i++) { Task<int>[][] arr = GenerateOperationTasks(); mainTask[i] = arr; } } private Task<int>[][] GenerateOperationTasks() { //two download tasks Task<int>[] downloadTasks = new Task<int>[2]; downloadTasks[0] = new Task<int>(() => { return 0; }); downloadTasks[1] = new Task<int>(() => { return 0; }); //one installation task Task<int>[] installTask = new Task<int>[1] { new Task<int>(() => { return 0; }) }; //operations Task is jagged - keeps tasks above Task<int>[][] operationTasks = new Task<int>[2][]; operationTasks[0] = downloadTasks; operationTasks[1] = installTask; return operationTasks; } So now I got my mainTask array of tasks, containing nicely ordered tasks just as described above. However after reading the docs on ContinuationTasks, I realise this does not help me since I must call e.g. Task.ContinueWith(Task2). I'm stumped about doing this on my mainTask array. I can't write mainTask[0].ContinueWith(mainTask[1]) because I dont know the size of the array. If I could somehow reference the next task in the array (but without knowing its index), but cant figure out how. Any ideas? Thank you very much for your help. Regards,

    Read the article

  • What exactly are administrative redexes after CPS conversion?

    - by eljenso
    In the context of Scheme and CPS conversion, I'm having a little trouble deciding what administrative redexes (lambdas) exactly are: all the lambda expressions that are introduced by the CPS conversion only the lambda expressions that are introduced by the CPS conversion but you wouldn't have written if you did the conversion "by hand" or through a smarter CPS-converter If possible, a good reference would be welcome.

    Read the article

  • converting code from non-(C)ontinuation (P)assing (S)tyle to CPS

    - by Delirium tremens
    before: function sc_startSiteCompare(){ var visitinguri; var validateduri; var downloaduris; var compareuris; var tryinguri; sc_setstatus('started'); visitinguri = sc_getvisitinguri(); validateduri = sc_getvalidateduri(visitinguri); downloaduris = new Array(); downloaduris = sc_generatedownloaduris(validateduri); compareuris = new Array(); compareuris = sc_generatecompareuris(validateduri); tryinguri = 0; sc_finishSiteCompare(downloaduris, compareuris, tryinguri); } function sc_getvisitinguri() { var visitinguri; visitinguri = content.location.href; return visitinguri; } after (I'm trying): function sc_startSiteCompare(){ var visitinguri; sc_setstatus('started'); visitinguri = sc_getvisitinguri(sc_startSiteComparec1); } function sc_startSiteComparec1 (visitinguri) { var validateduri; validateduri = sc_getvalidateduri(visitinguri, sc_startSiteComparec2); } function sc_startSiteComparec2 (visitinguri, c) { var downloaduris; downloaduris = sc_generatedownloaduris(validateduri, sc_startSiteComparec3); } function sc_startSiteComparec3 (validateduri, c) { var compareuris; compareuris = sc_generatecompareuris(downloaduris, validateduri, sc_startSiteComparec4); } function sc_startSiteComparec4 (downloaduris, compareuris, validateduri, c) { var tryinguri; tryinguri = 0; sc_finishSiteCompare(downloaduris, compareuris, tryinguri); } function sc_getvisitinguri(c) { var visitinguri; visitinguri = content.location.href; c(visitinguri); } I'm having to pass lots of arguments to functions now. global in procedural code look like this / self in modular code. Any difference? Will I really have to use OO now? As a last resort, does CPS have an alternative?

    Read the article

  • Parallelism in .NET – Part 19, TaskContinuationOptions

    - by Reed
    My introduction to Task continuations demonstrates continuations on the Task class.  In addition, I’ve shown how continuations allow handling of multiple tasks in a clean, concise manner.  Continuations can also be used to handle exceptional situations using a clean, simple syntax. In addition to standard Task continuations , the Task class provides some options for filtering continuations automatically.  This is handled via the TaskContinationOptions enumeration, which provides hints to the TaskScheduler that it should only continue based on the operation of the antecedent task. This is especially useful when dealing with exceptions.  For example, we can extend the sample from our earlier continuation discussion to include support for handling exceptions thrown by the Factorize method: // Get a copy of the UI-thread task scheduler up front to use later var uiScheduler = TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext(); // Start our task var factorize = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => { int primeFactor1 = 0; int primeFactor2 = 0; bool result = Factorize(10298312, ref primeFactor1, ref primeFactor2); return new { Result = result, Factor1 = primeFactor1, Factor2 = primeFactor2 }; }); // When we succeed, report the results to the UI factorize.ContinueWith(task => textBox1.Text = string.Format("{0}/{1} [Succeeded {2}]", task.Result.Factor1, task.Result.Factor2, task.Result.Result), CancellationToken.None, TaskContinuationOptions.NotOnFaulted, uiScheduler); // When we have an exception, report it factorize.ContinueWith(task => textBox1.Text = string.Format("Error: {0}", task.Exception.Message), CancellationToken.None, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted, uiScheduler); .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } The above code works by using a combination of features.  First, we schedule our task, the same way as in the previous example.  However, in this case, we use a different overload of Task.ContinueWith which allows us to specify both a specific TaskScheduler (in order to have your continuation run on the UI’s synchronization context) as well as a TaskContinuationOption.  In the first continuation, we tell the continuation that we only want it to run when there was not an exception by specifying TaskContinuationOptions.NotOnFaulted.  When our factorize task completes successfully, this continuation will automatically run on the UI thread, and provide the appropriate feedback. However, if the factorize task has an exception – for example, if the Factorize method throws an exception due to an improper input value, the second continuation will run.  This occurs due to the specification of TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted in the options.  In this case, we’ll report the error received to the user. We can use TaskContinuationOptions to filter our continuations by whether or not an exception occurred and whether or not a task was cancelled.  This allows us to handle many situations, and is especially useful when trying to maintain a valid application state without ever blocking the user interface.  The same concepts can be extended even further, and allow you to chain together many tasks based on the success of the previous ones.  Continuations can even be used to create a state machine with full error handling, all without blocking the user interface thread.

    Read the article

  • How do you keep code with continuations/callbacks readable?

    - by Heinzi
    Summary: Are there some well-established best-practice patterns that I can follow to keep my code readable in spite of using asynchronous code and callbacks? I'm using a JavaScript library that does a lot of stuff asynchronously and heavily relies on callbacks. It seems that writing a simple "load A, load B, ..." method becomes quite complicated and hard to follow using this pattern. Let me give a (contrived) example. Let's say I want to load a bunch of images (asynchronously) from a remote web server. In C#/async, I'd write something like this: disableStartButton(); foreach (myData in myRepository) { var result = await LoadImageAsync("http://my/server/GetImage?" + myData.Id); if (result.Success) { myData.Image = result.Data; } else { write("error loading Image " + myData.Id); return; } } write("success"); enableStartButton(); The code layout follows the "flow of events": First, the start button is disabled, then the images are loaded (await ensures that the UI stays responsive) and then the start button is enabled again. In JavaScript, using callbacks, I came up with this: disableStartButton(); var count = myRepository.length; function loadImage(i) { if (i >= count) { write("success"); enableStartButton(); return; } myData = myRepository[i]; LoadImageAsync("http://my/server/GetImage?" + myData.Id, function(success, data) { if (success) { myData.Image = data; } else { write("error loading image " + myData.Id); return; } loadImage(i+1); } ); } loadImage(0); I think the drawbacks are obvious: I had to rework the loop into a recursive call, the code that's supposed to be executed in the end is somewhere in the middle of the function, the code starting the download (loadImage(0)) is at the very bottom, and it's generally much harder to read and follow. It's ugly and I don't like it. I'm sure that I'm not the first one to encounter this problem, so my question is: Are there some well-established best-practice patterns that I can follow to keep my code readable in spite of using asynchronous code and callbacks?

    Read the article

  • Jetty 7 Continuations: How to *not* redispatch the request?

    - by Don Werve
    I'm using Jetty 7 continuations to implement some asynchronous processing. What I'm trying to do is start off the continuation (via .suspend()), and then hand the continuation off to some other object that will compose the response, which works fine. But Jetty keeps redispatching the response (with isInitial = false) to the servlet, and I don't want or need that, because the response is being dealt with by some other object. So, I'd like to find a way to explicitly not redispatch the request on timeout or expire, because I'm using an event-driven series of callbacks to actually produce the response.

    Read the article

  • Are Scala "continuations" just a funky syntax for defining and using Callback Functions?

    - by Alex R
    And I mean that in the same sense that a C/Java for is just a funky syntax for a while loop. I still remember when first learning about the for loop in C, the mental effort that had to go into understanding the execution sequence of the three control expressions relative to the loop statement. Seems to me the same sort of effort has to be applied to understand Continuations (in Scala and I guess probably other languages). And then there's the obvious follow-up question... if so, then what's the point? It seems like a lot of pain (language complexity, programmer errors, unreadable programs, etc) for no gain.

    Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >